Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 12:09:07 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@meta.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, riel@surriel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rcu] Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using
 never-online CPUs
Message-ID: <ZEmhAzUMnQ1rP2YU@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <83d037d1-ef12-4b31-a7b9-7b1ed6c3ae42@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZEmBy0H5T5vQJDUW@slm.duckdns.org>
 <1713f8f6-88d6-41f1-bbc6-045b2e017289@paulmck-laptop>
 <ZEmYFLKspo-rhyp4@slm.duckdns.org>
 <c4d39cb7-dbb7-44ad-b90e-71655bdbefd1@paulmck-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c4d39cb7-dbb7-44ad-b90e-71655bdbefd1@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Paul.

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 02:55:04PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But if the call_rcu_tasks_*() code detects too much lock contention on
> CPU 0's queue, which indicates that very large numbers of callbacks are
> being queued, it switches to per-CPU mode.  In which case, we are likely
> to have lots of callbacks on lots of queues, and in that case we really
> want to invoke them concurrently.
> 
> Then if a later grace period finds that there are no more callbacks, it
> switches back to CPU-0 mode.  So this extra workqueue overhead should
> happen only on systems with sparse cpu_online_masks that are under heavy
> call_rcu_tasks_*() load.

I still wonder whether it can be solved by simply switching to unbound
workqueues instead of implementing custom load-spreading mechanism. We'd be
basically asking the scheduler to what it thinks is best instead of trying
to make manual CPU placement decisions. That said, as a fix, the original
patch looks fine to me. Gonna go ack that.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun